Play stupid? I thought I answered the question adequately. If all this information is public, how the hell wouldn't they find out? Looks like cops will have to find another way of enforcing the law, which may be less effective, but that would be for the best.
Ah, you really are that dim. Is that physically painful?
If it's available to someone like me, don't you think it would also be available to the general public? What a pointless question.
You can't really be that dim, which means you're just being disingenuous in the extreme.
But I'll play along.
So in exchange for total transparency, you're willing to let gangs, child traffickers, massive scam operations, and much worse simply carry on? People we now lock up for really evil crap, based on the hard work of undercover cops... you're cool with them doing business as usual, unmolested by law enforcement because you'd like the child-pimping slime to get updates from the Bureau Of Openness on all government activity?
I feel I have every right to know what my lovely little government thugs are doing.
Does everyone else also have that right? How about someone who is engaged in a securities scam or human trafficking? Should they be informed about the under cover officer who is working to see them put away for stealing people's money or prostituting teenage girls? How would you like that information delivered to you and to those criminals? Do you prefer an RSS feed, or perhaps a PDF emailed weekly?
despite previously saying that model aircraft use was unregulated
Their answer to that, of course, is that it's no longer "modeling" when you're flying something through the air for commercial use.
I agree that they need to follow proper rule making procedures, and get this done for real. In the meantime, it's a complete mess, and the administration is thumbing its nose at the law (from congress) that set a timetable for having this wrapped up. Deliberate foot-dragging with no consequences for anyone except all of the people looking to earn and spend money in this area. For an administration that pretends that it cares about the economy and jobs, this is just more of the same BS.
Since when do gliders have props spinning at high RPMs?
Who cares? The case in question wasn't about a glider. It was about someone flying FPV under power, diving under bridges through traffic, looping the hospital helipad, etc. That's not "glider" activity. The guy used the same style craft for his stunts buzzing the Statue Of Liberty and other high profile structures with lots of people right under his area of operation, while flying outside line of site. Props, spinning. Feel free to stick your nose or a finger into that while it's flying. I wouldn't.
in other words they were prosecuting him for not having a licence that he couldn't possibly get
You mean, like you couldn't possibly get a permit to launch a multi-stage, liquid fueled rocket from your back yard into LEO? Well, since you can't get that permit, they would be total asshats for fining you if you did it anyway, right?
It is the point - address the recklessness
The pilot's recklessness is EXACTLY why he was fined. The administrative judge's initial ruling (it was just an initial one - this still has a long way to go, including eventually to an actual federal court if the agency wants that to happen) was that the rule making process that was used to back up the agency's policy wasn't properly followed. So the pilot wiggles out of his fine on a technicality, not because he actually deserved to avoid the fine.
So every kid with a model plane is now possible subject to a $10,000 fine?
Does "every kid" use an out-of-line-of-sight FPV RC plane to fly at street level through traffic, buzz a hospital's active helipad, and make people on public streets duck while the pilot is making video that he uses to show off the stuff he sells? Interesting.
If somebody tosses a styrofoam plane into the air and it bonks a passerby, it is very unlikely to cause significant physical harm
Have you actually seen these FPV "foamies?" We're talking about things that are carrying a camera, a brushless gimbal, flight controller with associated daughter components, one or more heavy/dense lithium batteries, a prop spinning at high RPMs (frequently made from very sharp carbon fiber), and... the whole thing can weigh several pounds, with some of them easily flying at well over 50mph (some well over 100mph).
If I throw a rock at you, clearly you will have to duck.
But the FAA's policies make specific reference to model aircraft, and repeatedly get into things like "guided" and "sustained" flight. Meaning, the reason an RC drone isn't a rock is that you're actually sending it, under control, through a sustained flight in the air. The FAA's authority begins an inch off the ground, not 100' or 10,000' - which is why they're still in charge of safety when a 747 is 1' off the runway, or 1,000' off the runway.
but I'd say they would only have a case there if a helicopter were attempting to operate in the area and the guy kept flying his plane
A hospital helipad is a 24x7 controlled bit of air space. And more to the point, the pilot in question is all about goggles-on FPV flight. He's seeing where he's going by watching through a small nose camera and a relatively low-res RF video downlink. The guy we're talking about ("Trappy" Pirker) makes a big deal about how he flies FPV out of line of sight. Flying that way, he's got absolutely no situational awareness (say, a medivac helicopter coming in from above or from the side, out of his FPV cam's forward view).
No, he didn't. The FAA fined him for operating recklessly, and he followed the usual administrative procedure to challenge that fine.
That's not to say that some law suits aren't appropriate in this area - if for no other reason than that the FAA is ignoring legal mandates from Congress to get this area sensibly on the books in short order. The Obama administration, and their people running the agency in question (which is part of the executive branch) is, just as they're doing by randomly and unilaterally modifying and ignoring hard dates and requirements in the ACA, are just blowing off the law on this matter. That, in and of itself, has no bearing on the case in question, but it's causing this to be dragged out for no reason, as hundreds of millions in new economic activity is sitting on the sidelines holding its breath. Thanks, administration. We can tell what your priorities are.
His videos show eye-level flights along public streets dodging cars. He shows himself flying directly over an active hospital heliport. He shows people having to duck low-level passes in public spaces.
He is the worst possible example of someone doing business in this area.
He didn't get in trouble because he was flying recklessly, but because he was trying to earn a living.
No. This was specifically because he was being reckless. His videos showing him flying at street level through traffic, buzzing the hospital heliport, etc.
The reason the FAA became aware of his asshattery is that he uses his jerky stunt flying to promote his business (he sells multirotor hardware, among other things). He's an attention whore, and puts together his videos with a deliberately provocative tone, and it caught up with him. The issue of commercial vs. hobby was incidental, and the administrative judge's ruling didn't speak to that directly anyway.
Regardless, this isn't even a "final" ruling. For now, he's had his fine dropped. Heavy, onerous regulations are coming for RC/FPV operators, and it will be ugly (licensing, air worthiness certificates, medical exams, etc).
Why should buzzing a crowd be okay, but buzzing a crowd FOR PROFIT be illegal?
Buzzing a crowd isn't OK either way. Regardless of the state of the FAA's pending new regs, plenty of local laws against reckless endangerment can be brought to bear, and this sort of ruling is going to pour gas on the fire of a thousand local jurisdictions throwing together a patchwork nightmare of laws against Evil Drones. This ruling is actually a bad thing.
The human brain doesn't fully develop until 25. We don't even hold teenagers responsible for their actions until they're 17-18.
Exactly. And so this (her actions) are her parent's responsibility. And so the fact that the information they agreed to keep private was out in public is the fault of the parents, and they are suffering exactly the consequences that they agreed to suffer for doing that exact thing.
How many times do we get to "discover" that bears actually do shit in the woods?
The point in this case is that they're suggesting that we're seeing evidence not just of water, but of biological activity. You are able to see the difference, right? It's like discovering that bears not only shit in the woods, but that they also have toilet paper and elaborate sewage treatment facilities hidden in their caves. Or would be, if this evidence actually points to more-than-just-water conclusion.
It's not like we don't have what are essentially remote science laboratories that we've sent there which should theoretically be able to find this sort of stuff in the samples they collect.
Actually it is like that. Because nothing we've sent there can look inside a good-sized rock with that degree of non-destructive precision and delicacy.
Start you own company, and make a point of having absolutely no way to deal with the communications your employers perform on your behalf. Don't worry, you'll never, ever be involved in any sort of lawsuit that would bring out the fact that you don't cover yourself. What could go wrong? You'll be fine.
Don't be an idiot. This isn't about Facebook using his photos, it's about a third party using them. Nothing about allowing Facebook to exhibit your photos grants a license to some OTHER party for commercial use.
This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy")
Well, really, that case is about his reckless operations in Virginia (flying past a hospital helipad, flying through traffic at street level, etc). And that's taken in the context of his frequent flaunting of anything resembling good manners when he does his stunts to try to drum up eyeballs for his videos and promote what he's selling.
I don't think that case will have much of anything to do with resolving the question of whether or not the FAA's smack-down on commercial operators is viable.
Here's the real issue: most insurance underwriters have clauses requiring their insured parties to operate in keeping with the GUIDELINES of that agency. Law or regulation doesn't matter. If the FAA guidelines are that recreational RC pilots staying under 400 ft, in line of sight, away from people and airports and the like are OK, but people conducting business using RC are, for now, NOT OK... then operating commercially anyway will put most insurance policy holders in violation of the fine print, and they'll be on the hook in the event of a mishap, injury, or damage. It's very hard for most photographers, videographers, event promoters and such to secure liability insurance to cover doing something that a federal agency says is not allowed. That expectation of compliance with those guidelines is something that the insured and insurer mutually agree to, and that really makes things difficult for someone who wants to fly a camera drone over very expensive commercial property or a crowd of people for money.
Yes, the matter of the FAA's plenary authority in this area, and the way they apply it (or don't) has to be clarified. But in the meantime, there are real, practical reasons why their position is an impediment to commercial RC use. Lawyers for very big commercial entities have been telling their clients to stay away from the tremendous possibilities in this area. Which sucks. But large, expensive legal teams, on retainer for companies that want to use RC commercially, have concluded that the FAA's position is - in practical terms - as good as law for now.
He's telling you exactly what he experienced in real life. Like him and the person he responded to, my wife and I also saw our coverage canned because of the ACA. To replace it, we must now pay roughly double the monthly premium, a hugely higher deductible, and have lost access to the doctor we've been using for 20 years. The best local hospitals are now off limits, too. But luckily, now that we're past child-bearing years, we've got free maternity care... so, there's that.
Telling people who are reporting these facts to you that they're imagining things is absurd. Your agenda is showing.
Slashdot Mirror
Play stupid? I thought I answered the question adequately. If all this information is public, how the hell wouldn't they find out? Looks like cops will have to find another way of enforcing the law, which may be less effective, but that would be for the best.
Ah, you really are that dim. Is that physically painful?
If it's available to someone like me, don't you think it would also be available to the general public? What a pointless question.
You can't really be that dim, which means you're just being disingenuous in the extreme.
... you're cool with them doing business as usual, unmolested by law enforcement because you'd like the child-pimping slime to get updates from the Bureau Of Openness on all government activity?
But I'll play along.
So in exchange for total transparency, you're willing to let gangs, child traffickers, massive scam operations, and much worse simply carry on? People we now lock up for really evil crap, based on the hard work of undercover cops
And don't play stupid. Address the issue.
I feel I have every right to know what my lovely little government thugs are doing.
Does everyone else also have that right? How about someone who is engaged in a securities scam or human trafficking? Should they be informed about the under cover officer who is working to see them put away for stealing people's money or prostituting teenage girls? How would you like that information delivered to you and to those criminals? Do you prefer an RSS feed, or perhaps a PDF emailed weekly?
despite previously saying that model aircraft use was unregulated
Their answer to that, of course, is that it's no longer "modeling" when you're flying something through the air for commercial use.
I agree that they need to follow proper rule making procedures, and get this done for real. In the meantime, it's a complete mess, and the administration is thumbing its nose at the law (from congress) that set a timetable for having this wrapped up. Deliberate foot-dragging with no consequences for anyone except all of the people looking to earn and spend money in this area. For an administration that pretends that it cares about the economy and jobs, this is just more of the same BS.
Since when do gliders have props spinning at high RPMs?
Who cares? The case in question wasn't about a glider. It was about someone flying FPV under power, diving under bridges through traffic, looping the hospital helipad, etc. That's not "glider" activity. The guy used the same style craft for his stunts buzzing the Statue Of Liberty and other high profile structures with lots of people right under his area of operation, while flying outside line of site. Props, spinning. Feel free to stick your nose or a finger into that while it's flying. I wouldn't.
in other words they were prosecuting him for not having a licence that he couldn't possibly get
You mean, like you couldn't possibly get a permit to launch a multi-stage, liquid fueled rocket from your back yard into LEO? Well, since you can't get that permit, they would be total asshats for fining you if you did it anyway, right?
It is the point - address the recklessness
The pilot's recklessness is EXACTLY why he was fined. The administrative judge's initial ruling (it was just an initial one - this still has a long way to go, including eventually to an actual federal court if the agency wants that to happen) was that the rule making process that was used to back up the agency's policy wasn't properly followed. So the pilot wiggles out of his fine on a technicality, not because he actually deserved to avoid the fine.
So every kid with a model plane is now possible subject to a $10,000 fine?
Does "every kid" use an out-of-line-of-sight FPV RC plane to fly at street level through traffic, buzz a hospital's active helipad, and make people on public streets duck while the pilot is making video that he uses to show off the stuff he sells? Interesting.
If somebody tosses a styrofoam plane into the air and it bonks a passerby, it is very unlikely to cause significant physical harm
Have you actually seen these FPV "foamies?" We're talking about things that are carrying a camera, a brushless gimbal, flight controller with associated daughter components, one or more heavy/dense lithium batteries, a prop spinning at high RPMs (frequently made from very sharp carbon fiber), and ... the whole thing can weigh several pounds, with some of them easily flying at well over 50mph (some well over 100mph).
Care to get "bonked" by one of those?
If I throw a rock at you, clearly you will have to duck.
But the FAA's policies make specific reference to model aircraft, and repeatedly get into things like "guided" and "sustained" flight. Meaning, the reason an RC drone isn't a rock is that you're actually sending it, under control, through a sustained flight in the air. The FAA's authority begins an inch off the ground, not 100' or 10,000' - which is why they're still in charge of safety when a 747 is 1' off the runway, or 1,000' off the runway.
but I'd say they would only have a case there if a helicopter were attempting to operate in the area and the guy kept flying his plane
A hospital helipad is a 24x7 controlled bit of air space. And more to the point, the pilot in question is all about goggles-on FPV flight. He's seeing where he's going by watching through a small nose camera and a relatively low-res RF video downlink. The guy we're talking about ("Trappy" Pirker) makes a big deal about how he flies FPV out of line of sight. Flying that way, he's got absolutely no situational awareness (say, a medivac helicopter coming in from above or from the side, out of his FPV cam's forward view).
It went to trial because HE sued the FAA.
No, he didn't. The FAA fined him for operating recklessly, and he followed the usual administrative procedure to challenge that fine.
That's not to say that some law suits aren't appropriate in this area - if for no other reason than that the FAA is ignoring legal mandates from Congress to get this area sensibly on the books in short order. The Obama administration, and their people running the agency in question (which is part of the executive branch) is, just as they're doing by randomly and unilaterally modifying and ignoring hard dates and requirements in the ACA, are just blowing off the law on this matter. That, in and of itself, has no bearing on the case in question, but it's causing this to be dragged out for no reason, as hundreds of millions in new economic activity is sitting on the sidelines holding its breath. Thanks, administration. We can tell what your priorities are.
His videos show eye-level flights along public streets dodging cars. He shows himself flying directly over an active hospital heliport. He shows people having to duck low-level passes in public spaces.
He is the worst possible example of someone doing business in this area.
He didn't get in trouble because he was flying recklessly, but because he was trying to earn a living.
No. This was specifically because he was being reckless. His videos showing him flying at street level through traffic, buzzing the hospital heliport, etc.
The reason the FAA became aware of his asshattery is that he uses his jerky stunt flying to promote his business (he sells multirotor hardware, among other things). He's an attention whore, and puts together his videos with a deliberately provocative tone, and it caught up with him. The issue of commercial vs. hobby was incidental, and the administrative judge's ruling didn't speak to that directly anyway.
Regardless, this isn't even a "final" ruling. For now, he's had his fine dropped. Heavy, onerous regulations are coming for RC/FPV operators, and it will be ugly (licensing, air worthiness certificates, medical exams, etc).
Why should buzzing a crowd be okay, but buzzing a crowd FOR PROFIT be illegal?
Buzzing a crowd isn't OK either way. Regardless of the state of the FAA's pending new regs, plenty of local laws against reckless endangerment can be brought to bear, and this sort of ruling is going to pour gas on the fire of a thousand local jurisdictions throwing together a patchwork nightmare of laws against Evil Drones. This ruling is actually a bad thing.
I drove my SUV to the same Home Depot three times this week while fixing a plumbing problem. QED
Someone should look up the meaning of interstellar, this trip although close wouldn't even be interplanetary.
Maybe someone ELSE should re-read the words and note the difference between "inter" and "intra."
It's here as a reminder that Facebook is a REALLY dumb idea and that people should realize it's not private.
Facebook doesn't make stupid posts, people make stupid posts.
Are kitchen knives a really dumb idea after you cut off your finger while making dinner?
The human brain doesn't fully develop until 25. We don't even hold teenagers responsible for their actions until they're 17-18.
Exactly. And so this (her actions) are her parent's responsibility. And so the fact that the information they agreed to keep private was out in public is the fault of the parents, and they are suffering exactly the consequences that they agreed to suffer for doing that exact thing.
How many times do we get to "discover" that bears actually do shit in the woods?
The point in this case is that they're suggesting that we're seeing evidence not just of water, but of biological activity. You are able to see the difference, right? It's like discovering that bears not only shit in the woods, but that they also have toilet paper and elaborate sewage treatment facilities hidden in their caves. Or would be, if this evidence actually points to more-than-just-water conclusion.
It's not like we don't have what are essentially remote science laboratories that we've sent there which should theoretically be able to find this sort of stuff in the samples they collect.
Actually it is like that. Because nothing we've sent there can look inside a good-sized rock with that degree of non-destructive precision and delicacy.
Start you own company, and make a point of having absolutely no way to deal with the communications your employers perform on your behalf. Don't worry, you'll never, ever be involved in any sort of lawsuit that would bring out the fact that you don't cover yourself. What could go wrong? You'll be fine.
Don't be an idiot. This isn't about Facebook using his photos, it's about a third party using them. Nothing about allowing Facebook to exhibit your photos grants a license to some OTHER party for commercial use.
This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy")
Well, really, that case is about his reckless operations in Virginia (flying past a hospital helipad, flying through traffic at street level, etc). And that's taken in the context of his frequent flaunting of anything resembling good manners when he does his stunts to try to drum up eyeballs for his videos and promote what he's selling.
I don't think that case will have much of anything to do with resolving the question of whether or not the FAA's smack-down on commercial operators is viable.
Here's the real issue: most insurance underwriters have clauses requiring their insured parties to operate in keeping with the GUIDELINES of that agency. Law or regulation doesn't matter. If the FAA guidelines are that recreational RC pilots staying under 400 ft, in line of sight, away from people and airports and the like are OK, but people conducting business using RC are, for now, NOT OK... then operating commercially anyway will put most insurance policy holders in violation of the fine print, and they'll be on the hook in the event of a mishap, injury, or damage. It's very hard for most photographers, videographers, event promoters and such to secure liability insurance to cover doing something that a federal agency says is not allowed. That expectation of compliance with those guidelines is something that the insured and insurer mutually agree to, and that really makes things difficult for someone who wants to fly a camera drone over very expensive commercial property or a crowd of people for money.
Yes, the matter of the FAA's plenary authority in this area, and the way they apply it (or don't) has to be clarified. But in the meantime, there are real, practical reasons why their position is an impediment to commercial RC use. Lawyers for very big commercial entities have been telling their clients to stay away from the tremendous possibilities in this area. Which sucks. But large, expensive legal teams, on retainer for companies that want to use RC commercially, have concluded that the FAA's position is - in practical terms - as good as law for now.
Shut up you pompous ass.
... so, there's that.
He's telling you exactly what he experienced in real life. Like him and the person he responded to, my wife and I also saw our coverage canned because of the ACA. To replace it, we must now pay roughly double the monthly premium, a hugely higher deductible, and have lost access to the doctor we've been using for 20 years. The best local hospitals are now off limits, too. But luckily, now that we're past child-bearing years, we've got free maternity care
Telling people who are reporting these facts to you that they're imagining things is absurd. Your agenda is showing.
I know it's not real, (the drone hunting license part), but do the folks around Deer Trail know it?
Yes. Which is why their city council won't even entertain the idea, and it's just one guy there who's selling cheesy certificates online.
Are you retarded?
No, but you're obviously in 8th grade. Please shut down your web browser and study a little bit before your mom tucks you in tonight, OK?
Hilarious.